The Henrietta Lacks story is one of tragedy, but also of immense medical progress. In 1951, Henrietta Lacks was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cervical cancer. While she was being treated, her doctor took samples of her cells without her knowledge, and these cells are now known as HeLa cells. HeLa cells have since been used in the development of groundbreaking medical treatments, including the polio vaccine, cloning and gene mapping. Despite the significant advances made in medical science through the use of HeLa cells, the family of Henrietta Lacks has yet to receive compensation for the cells. This essay will discuss the various arguments surrounding the question of whether or not the family of Henrietta Lacks should be compensated for the use of HeLa cells by companies selling the cells.
The argument for compensating the family of Henrietta Lacks
for the use of HeLa cells is rooted in the ethical implications of HeLa cells’
use in medical science. First and foremost, Henrietta Lacks did not give her
consent for her cells to be used in medical research. Without her knowledge or
consent, her cells were harvested and used for research. This raises ethical
questions about the role of informed consent in medical research. Henrietta’s
cells were taken from her body without her consent, which is a violation of her
privacy and dignity. Furthermore, her family was not informed of the use of her
cells in medical research until much later, and they have not been adequately
informed of the progress made with HeLa cells in medical science. This lack of
informed consent is a violation of the right to autonomy and
self-determination, and it is unacceptable that the family of Henrietta Lacks
has not been compensated for the use of her cells in medical science.
The second argument in favor of compensating the family of
Henrietta Lacks is that the HeLa cells have made significant contributions to
medical science. HeLa cells have been used to develop treatments for a variety
of diseases, including polio, cancer, and HIV/AIDS. They have been used to
develop groundbreaking treatments and advances in the field of genetic
engineering and cloning. Additionally, HeLa cells have been used in the
development of vaccines for numerous illnesses, including the polio vaccine.
Without Henrietta Lacks’ cells, medical science would not be where it is today.
The third argument in favor of compensating the family of
Henrietta Lacks is that Henrietta’s story is an example of how people of color
and marginalized communities have been used and exploited for medical research
without their knowledge or consent. Henrietta was a black woman in the 1950s,
and her cells were taken without her knowledge or consent. This has been a
common pattern in the history of medical research: people of color and
marginalized communities have often been the unwitting subjects of medical
research. Compensating the family of Henrietta Lacks would be a way of
acknowledging this history and recognizing the exploitation that people of
color and marginalized communities have experienced in the history of medical
research.
The argument against compensating the family of Henrietta Lacks for the use of HeLa cells is rooted in the legal implications of the HeLa cells’ use in medical science. First and foremost, the legal basis for the use of HeLa cells in medical research is murky. At the time that her cells were taken, Henrietta Lacks did not give her consent for them to be used in medical research. Additionally, her family was not informed of the use of her cells until much later, and thus, they were not able to provide legal consent for the use of the cells in medical research. Furthermore, the law in the United States does not allow for any compensation for the use of human cells in medical research. Thus, it is unlikely that the family of Henrietta Lacks would be able to receive any compensation for the use of HeLa cells in medical science.
The second argument against compensating the family of
Henrietta Lacks is that it would set a dangerous precedent. If the family of
Henrietta Lacks were to receive compensation for the use of HeLa cells, it
could open the door for other families to demand compensation for the use of
their cells in medical research. This could lead to a situation in which
companies and research institutions are inundated with requests for compensation,
which could put a strain on the medical research industry. Furthermore, it
could lead to companies and research institutions shying away from using human
cells in medical research, which could impede the progress of medical science.
The third argument against compensating the family of
Henrietta Lacks is that there is no guarantee that the compensation would go to
the family. If the family of Henrietta Lacks were to receive compensation for
the use of HeLa cells, there is no guarantee that the money would be used for
their benefit. There is the possibility that the money would end up in the
hands of lawyers or other third parties, rather than the family. Additionally,
it is unclear who would be responsible for administering and distributing the compensation,
and thus, there is no guarantee that the compensation would be distributed
fairly.
In conclusion, there are numerous arguments for and against
compensating the family of Henrietta Lacks for the use of HeLa cells. On the
one hand, compensating the family would recognize the violation of Henrietta’s
autonomy and self-determination, acknowledge the contribution that her cells
have made to medical science, and recognize the exploitation of people of color
and marginalized communities in the history of medical research. On the other
hand, the legal basis for compensation is unclear, it could set a dangerous
precedent, and there is no guarantee that the compensation would benefit the
family. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to compensate the family of
Henrietta Lacks is a difficult one, and it is up to the medical research
community to decide how to proceed.